Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With all due respect, Mr. Cohen, I have been here since 1994 and I can tell you that we have already in the past examined regulations and legislation which the department said was constitutional but which was subsequently invalidated. My colleague may have said that this happened under the Liberals, but the antiterrorism provisions were studied in committee, right? Mr. Comartin was a member of the committee. Some provisions were ruled to be unconstitutional. When Ms. Marleau was Minister of Health, the anti-smoking regulations were invalidated. So I find your assertion to be presumptuous to say the least. Just because the department refers the bill to us does not mean that it cannot be deemed unconstitutional later on.
But since you are telling us with confidence that the bill is constitutional, I would like you for once, as a parliamentarian, to clarify the verification mechanisms. Please be quite precise. When the minister signs a memorandum in cabinet stating that it is constitutional, exactly how is this done?
I also have three questions to ask you about the substance. Like you I am a lawyer and I obviously know that legislation can be challenged. You said that you have checked everything generally, but what, more specifically, have you done, and what are the reasonable guarantees?